Skip to main content

Chicago Implements Expansive Predictive Scheduling Ordinance


Last month, the Chicago City Council approved what many have called the most expansive predictive scheduling ordinance in the country, the Chicago Fair Workweek Ordinance.  Set to take effect July 1, 2020, the Ordinance will apply to many workers in the city.

Who the Ordinance Covers

Of note, the City's Ordinance will apply to salaried employees earning no more than $50,000.00/year and hourly employees earning no more than $26/hour and who work in the building services, healthcare, hotel, manufacturing, restaurant, retail, or warehouse services industry.  The Ordinance applies to employers with more than 100 employees globally of which 50 of those employees meet the criteria of being covered by the ordinance.  For those employers in the restaurant industry, the threshold is 250 employees and 30 locations globally, and franchises with 4 or more locations in Chicago.

Ordinance Requirements

Now for the part that many employers and employees are likely looking for...what does the Ordinance require?  In short, starting July 1, 2020, covered employers will be required to provide those employees covered by the Ordinance with 10 days notice of work schedules.  (Starting July 1, 2022, that notice increases to 14 days.)  At the time an employee is hired, employers will be required to provide a good faith estimate of the protected days and hours of work for the first 90 days of employment.

For changes made after the notice deadline, a covered employee will have the right to decline any previously unscheduled hours.  As well, a covered employee will also have the right to decline a shift with less than a ten hour break from their last shift.  If the employee chooses to work that shift, the employer will be required to pay that employee 1.25 times their regular rate of pay.  For those employers that alter a covered employee's schedule after the deadline, the employer will be required to pay the employee one extra hour of pay (in addition to the employee's regular compensation.)  In the event a shift is canceled or reduced with less than 24 hours notice, the employer will be required to pay the employee at least 50% of their regular rate of pay for any scheduled hours.

Exceptions

Of note, there are exceptions carved out, including if a schedule is changed due to civil unrest or threats, utility outages, acts of nature; a mutually agreed upon shift trade or coverage arrangement between covered employees; if the covered employee and employer mutually agree and confirm in writing; and if a covered employee requests a shift change.

Penalties For Ordinance Violation(s)

Each violation of the Ordinance carries a fine of between $300 and $500.  If an employer discriminates or retaliates against an employee for exercising any right as provided by the Ordinance, the fine could increase to $1,000.00.

Given that employers in Chicago have less than a year to ensure compliance with this predictive scheduling ordinance, I would suggest steps be taken now to start implementing a policy to ensure a violation does not occur.  Afterall, the penalties could get to be quite costly.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more